Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86/mm/pat: Change pat_disable() to emulate PAT table
From: Borislav Petkov
Date: Tue Mar 15 2016 - 07:00:41 EST
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 03:37:23PM -0600, Toshi Kani wrote:
> Your patch is a simplified version of mine. ÂSo, yes, it fixes the Paul's
> issue, but it does not address other issues that my patchset also
> addressed. ÂIn specific, I think your patch has the following issues.
You couldnt've structured your reply better: remember how I split a
convoluted patch of yours already? A patch which was trying to do a
bunch of things in one go.
The situation here is the same. You need to do *one* *logical*
*non-trivial* thing in a patch. If there's something else that needs to
be done, add it in a *separate* patch which explains why that new change
> - pat_disable() is now callable from other modules. So, it needs to check
> withÂboot_cpu_done. We cannot disable PAT once it is initialized.
That should be a separate patch which explains *why* the change is being
> - mtrr_bp_init() needs to check with mtrr_enabled() when it
> callsÂmtrr_pat_setup_bp(). Otherwise, PAT is left initialized on BSP only
> when MTRR is disabled by its MSR. In your patch, mtrr_bp_init() calls
> pat_setup() again, but it does not help since boot_cpu_done is set.
The code which you carved out from get_mtrr_state() didn't check
mtrr_enabled() before. That needs to be another patch *again* with
> - When PAT is disabled in CPU feature, pat_bsp_init() calls pat_disable()
> and returns. However, it does not initialize a PAT table by calling
Yet another patch.
> - When CONFIG_MTRR is unset, it does not call pat_setup().
Aaaand... can you guess what I'm going to say here?
I hope it is coming across as I intend it: please use my hunk to do a
single fix and then prepare all those changes above in separate patches
"Problem is A. We need to do B. I'm doing it/I'm doing C because."
ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.